9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed the appeal by setting aside the penalty but confirming the demand of inadmissible Cenvat Credit and also upheld the recovery of interest. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant are holding Central Excise Registration and are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots falling under Tariff Heading 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) and are availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. The appellant have filed refund claims by way of self credit for the period from October 2010 to March 2011 under the provisions of the said Notification. On scrutiny of refund claims filed by the appellant, it was observed by the Adjudicating Authority tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly taken the self credit in respect of cesses as the appellant are entitled to refund of the same as they are entitled to the benefit of exemption under the Notification, which exempts the goods manufactured by the appellant from the Cenvat (BED) paid by them through PLA other than the amount of duty paid by utilization of Cenvat Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, meaning thereby that BED paid in cash and refunded subsequently, is just notional and in fact BED other than the amount of duty paid by utilization of Cenvat Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has been treated as Nil. The appellant have also stated in the grounds of appeal that the refund claims issued under the Notification are not in the nature of refunds which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o sub section (1) of Section 11A would be attracted only in a case where the refund made in favour of the assessee is erroneous by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any provisions of the act and the rules framed there under with an intent to evade payment of duty by the assessee or his agent." 6. In addition to the above, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has since quantified the refund admissible to the appellants vide OIOs No. 1135 to 1141/AC/R(S)JMU/14 dated 07.07.2014 and 945 to 955/AC/R(s)JMU/14 dated 23.06.2014." 8. Since the issue is no more res integra and this Tribunal in the above cited case has held that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
